HOME | ARTICLES | BIBLES | LINKS | ~ the HeReTiC ~

Seventh Day Adventist Pioneers on the Doctrine of the Trinity

~ James and Ellen White's - Western Tour.
We have not as much sympathy with Unitarians that deny the divinity of Christ, as with Trinitarians who hold that the Son is the eternal Father, and talk so mistily about the t one God. Give the Master all that divinity with which the Holy Scriptures clothe him.
Review and Herald - June 6, 1871

~ James S White:
"We invite all to compare the testimonies of the Holy Spirit through Mrs. W., with the wor of God. And in this we do not invite you to compare them with your creed. That is quite another thing. The TRINITARIAN may compare them with his creed, and because they do not agree with it, condemn them. The observer of Sunday, or the man who holds eternal torment an important truth, and the minister that sprinkles infants, may each condemn the testimonies' of Mrs. W. because they do not agree with their peculiar views. And a hundred more, each holding different views, may come to the same conclusion. But their genuineness can never be tested in this way."
{ James White RH June 13, 1871}

The question of the trinity and the unity is not practical, and yet we call attention to i guard the people against that terrible heresy that takes from our all-conquering Redeemer his divine power."
(James White, Review and Herald November 29th article ‘Christ Equal with God’ 1877)

“Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, …” {J. S. White, Review & Herald, December 11, 1855}

"To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father is as wide from the truth as the old Trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very a eternal God."
Review and Herald, Aug. 5, 1852, p.52.

"The Father is the greatest in that he is first. The Son is next in authority because He been given all things." Review and Herald, Jan. 4, 1881. J. S. White

"Paul affirms of the Son of God that he was in the form of God, and that he was equal with God. 'Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Phil. 2:6 The reason why it is not robbery for the Son to be equal with the Father is the fact that equal... The inexplicable Trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, 'Let us make man in our image?'"
Review and Herald, Nov. 29, (1877 p. 172. J. S. White)

"'Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was nee for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for The faith which was once delivered unto the saints...'Jude, 3-4...The exhortation to contend for the faith delivered to the saints, is to us alone. And it is very important for us to know what the meant, that we may know what for and how to contend. In the 4th verse he gives us the reason why we should contend for The faith, a particular faith; 'for there are certain men a certain class who deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ...The way spiritualiz this way have disposed of or denied the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ is first using the old unscriptural Trinitarian creed, viz., that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, they have not one passage to support it, while we have plain scripture testimony in abundance that he is the Son of the eternal God."
The Day Star, Jan. 24, 1846. J. S. White

~ J.H. Waggoner
"The great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, seems to be this: They make n distinction between a denial of a Trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a Trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a Trinity. Atonement, 1872 ed, chapter 4, "Doctrine Of A Trinity Subversive Of The Atonement" p. 165.

“Both the highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians are perfectly united on the death of Christ. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely huma that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not pos suffer, or die;that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity h dwelt. Both therefore have only a human offering, and nothing more.”
J.H. Waggoner, Review & Herald, July 18, 1854.

"The 'Athanasian creed'...was formulated and the faith defined by Athanasius. Previous to that time there was no settled method of expression, if, indeed, there was anywhere any uniformity of belief. Most of the early writers had been pagan philosophers, who to reach minds of that class, often made strong efforts to prove that there was a blending of the t systems, Christianity and philosophy. There is abundance of material in their writings to sustain this view. Bingham speaks of the vague views held by some in the following significant terms: "'There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity in Tritheism, and, instead of three divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, coordinate, and self- originated beings, making them absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the m proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the Trinity, t made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism.' - Antiquities, book 11, chap &4. "Who can distinguish between this form of expression and that put forth by the council Constantinople in A.D. 381, wherein the true faith is declared to be that of 'an uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity?' The truth is that we find the same idea which is h described by Bingham running through much of the orthodox literature of the second and third centuries. There is no proper 'relation of Father and Son' to be found in the words council, above quoted...Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three coordinate self-originated and independent beings arose in the church very early; and so we find it i earliest authors after the days of the apostles."
Thoughts on Baptism, 1878.

"The gates of the sanctuary once forced, the stream of corruption continued to flow with e deepening volume. The declensions in doctrine and worshiped already introduced had changed the brightness of the church's morning into twilight; the descent of the Northern nations, which beginning in the fifth, continued through several successive centuries, converted that twilight into night. The new tribes did change their country, but not their superstitions; and, unhappily, there was neither zeal nor vigour in the Christianity of th to the effect their instruction and a genuine conversion. The Bible had been withdrawn; in the pulpit fable had usurped the place of truth; holy lives, whose silent eloquence might won upon the barbarians, were rarely exemplified; and thus, instead of the church dissipating the superstitions that now encompass her like a cloud, these superstitions all quenched her own light. She opened her gates to receive the new peoples as they were. She sprinkled them with the new baptismal water; she inscribed their names in her registers; s taught them in their invocations to repeat the titles of the Trinity; but the doctrines of gospel, which alone can enlighten the understanding, purify the heart, and enrich the life with virtue, she was little careful to inculcate upon them. She folded them within her pal but they were scarcely more Christian than before, while she was greatly less so."-Ib., bo chap. 2, paragraph 8.
{February 15, 1889 EJW, BEST 57.4}

Thus was the church becoming paganized, and not long did it take to complete the transformation. {February 15, 1889 EJW, BEST 57.5}

You ask what we teach about the Trinity. Inasmuch as we find no such expression in the Scriptures, we do not teach anything about it. But as to the Being of God,-the Godhead,-Divinity as revealed in the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, we believe an teach just what the Bible says, and nothing else. No man can by searching find out God. No creature can understand the Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot comprehend infinity. Therefore, in discussions about the Trinity, about the nature of God, Christ, an Holy Spirit, are manifestations of gross presumption.
{February 6, 1902 EJW, PTUK 83.12}

Do you believe in the Trinity?"
If I knew what you meant by the term, I might tell you; but from the days of Athanasius un now all discussion about the Trinity has been an attempt to define the indefinable and the incomprehensible. Thousands have been put to death for not professing belief in a formula which even its professors could not comprehend, nor state in terms that anybody else could comprehend. The Scriptures reveal "One God and Father of all," our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the brightness of the Father's glory, and "the eternal Spirit" through whom Christ offe Himself and was raised from the dead; but we do not profess any knowledge of them beyond what the Scriptures give us. In teaching and preaching the Gospel we always confine ourselves strictly to Scripture terms and language; those who manufacture terms must be looked to for definitions of them. It is attest not to presume to define what the Bible ha defined, nor to attempt to explain infinity.
{July 30, 1903 EJW, PTUK 483.1-2}

"We have no acquaintance among the English missionaries, but some among those who have gone out from America. .... If the world is a wreck, and the function of the church is sim pack out a few elect struggling wretches who are "saved" when they leave changed their cre or their ritual, have substituted for an ignorant belief in a Hindu Triad a belief nearly ignorant in the Christian Trinity, or have left following the priestly procession in honor Brahm for that of the Salvation Army, .... for the object of the Salvation Army is not to them how to live, but to prepare them, by a sort of Protestant and unpriestly extreme unction, to die. {December 14, 1888 EJW, SITI 757.4}

Such was his rise, and such is his appearance. "And before whom three [kings] fell." All w are acquainted with the history, religious and secular, of the fourth and fifth centuries, aware that the Arian controversy was the leading cause of dispute, not only in the churche and councils, but among kings. The Gothic kings were Arians; and in those days the people professed the faith of their kings. But the Church of Rome was the representative of the Trinitarian faith. This faith was indorsed by the Council of Nice, where the primacy was conferred upon the bishop of Rome. This forever bound the bishop of that see to that faith The primacy and the doctrine of the Trinity were inseparable. That church was the chief support of what was then called the orthodox faith, while the Goths were held to be heretics.
{1890 JHW, FEE 115.2}

~ A.J. Dennis
"What a contradiction of terms is found in the language of a Trinitarian creed: 'In unity this Godhead are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.' There are many things that are mysterious, written in the word of God but we may safely presume the Lord never calls upon us to believe impossibilities. But cre often do."
Signs of the Times, May 22, 1879.

~ A. Norton
"When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . .we shall perceiv few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil."
(A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ); 1833

~ R.F. Cottrell
"My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are:

• 1. Its name is unscriptural the Trinity, or the triune God, is unknown to the Bible; and I entertained the idea that doctrines which require words coined in the human mind to expres them, are coined doctrines.
• 2. I have never felt called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to all the se and reason that God has given me. All my attempts at an explanation of such a subject woul make it no clearer to my friends..." Review and Herald, June 1, 1869.

"That one person is three persons, and that three persons are only one person, is the doct which we claim is contrary to reason and common sense. The being and attributes of God are above, beyond, out of reach of my sense and reason, yet I believe them": But the doctrine object to is contrary, yes, that is the word, to the very sense and reason that God has hi implanted in us. Such a doctrine he does not ask us to believe. A miracle is beyond our comprehension, but we all believe in miracles who believe our own senses. What we see and hear convinces us that there is a power that effected the most wonderful miracle of creati But our Creator has made it an absurdity to us that one person should be three persons, an three persons but one person; and in his revealed word he has never asked us to believe it This our friend thinks objectionable... "But to hold the doctrine of the Trinity is not so an evidence of evil intention as of intoxication from that wine of which all the nations h drunk. The fact that this was one of the leading doctrines, if not the very chief, upon wh the bishop of Rome was exalted to the popedom, does not say much in its favor. This should cause men to investigate it for themselves; as when the spirits of devils working miracles undertake the advocacy of the immortality of the soul. Had I never doubted it before, I wo now probe it to the bottom, by that word which modern Spiritualism sets at nought...

"Revelation goes beyond us; but in no instance does it go contrary to right reason and common sense. God has not claimed, as the popes have, that he could 'make justice of injustice,' nor has he, after teaching us to count, told us that there is no difference be the singular and plural numbers. Let us believe all he has revealed, and add nothing to it
Review and Herald, July 6, 1869.

"Men have gone to opposite extremes in the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some have made Christ a mere man, commencing his existence at his birth in Bethlehem; others have not been satisfied with holding him to be what the Scriptures so clearly reveal him, pre-existing Son of God, but have made him the 'God and Father' of himself."
Review and Herald, July 6, 1869.

~ J.N. Loughborough
"The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. The principal text supposed to teach i 1 John 5:7, which is an interpolation. Clarke says, 'Out of one hundred and thirteen manuscripts, the text is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It occurs in no MS. before the tenth century. And the first place the text occurs in Greek, is in the Greek translation o acts of the Council of Latern, held A.D. 1215.'-Com. on John 1, and remarks at close of chapter.
Review and Herald, Nov. 5, 1861.

The following questions I would like to have you give, or send, to Bro. Loughborough for explanation. W.W. Giles, Toledo, Ohio Question

QUESTION 1. What serious objection is there to the doctrine of the Trinity?
{November 5, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 184.2-9}

ANSWER. There are many objections which we might urge, but on account of our limited space we shall reduce them to the three following:

1. It is contrary to common sense.
2. It is contrary to scripture.
3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.

These positions we will remark upon briefly in their order.

• 1. It is not very consonant with common sense to talk of three being one, and one being th Or as some express it, calling God "the Triune God," or "the three-one-God." If Father, So and Holy Ghost are each God, it would be three Gods; for three times one is not one, but three. There is a sense in which they are one, but not one person, as claimed by Trinitari
  
• 2. It is contrary to Scripture. Almost any portion of the New Testament we may open which has occasion to speak of the Father and Son, represents them as two distinct persons. The seventeenth chapter of John is alone sufficient to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. Ove times in that one chapter Christ speaks of his Father as a person distinct from himself. H Father was in heaven and he upon earth. The Father had sent him. Given to him those that believed. He was then to go to the Father. And in this very testimony he shows us in what consists the oneness of the Father and Son. It is the same as the oneness of the members o Christ's church. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, tha also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory wh thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." Of one heart and one mind. Of one purpose in all the plan devised for man's salvation. Read the seventeenth chapter of John, and see if it does not completely upset the doctrine of the Trinity.
  To believe that doctrine, when reading the scripture we must believe that God sent himself into the world, died to reconcile the world to himself, raised himself from the dead, asce to himself in heaven, pleads before himself in heaven to reconcile the world to himself, a the only mediator between man and himself. It will not do to substitute the human nature o Christ (according to Trinitarians) as the Mediator; for Clarke says, "Human blood can no more appease God than swine's blood." Com. on 2Sam.xxi,10. We must believe also that in the garden God prayed to himself, if it were possible, to let the cup pass from himself, a thousand other such absurdities.
  Read carefully the following texts, comparing them with the idea that Christ is the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Supreme, and only self-existent God: John xiv,28; xvii,3; iii,16; v,19,26; xi,15; xx,19; viii,50; vi,38; Mark xiii,32; Luke vi,12; xxii,69; xxiv,29; Matt.ii xxvii,46; Gal.iii,20; 1Jno.ii,1; Rev.v,7; Acts xvii,31. Also see Matt.xi,25,27; Luke i,32; John iii,35,36; v,19,21,22,23,25,26; vi,40; viii,35,36; xiv,13; 1Cor.xv,28, etc.
  The word Trinity nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. The principal text supposed to teach it 1John i,7, which is an interpolation. Clarke says, "Out of one hundred and thirteen manuscripts, the text is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It occurs in no MS. before the tenth century. And the first place the text occurs in Greek, is in the Greek translation o acts of the Council of Lateran, held A. D. 1215." - Com. on John i, and remarks at close o chap.
  
• 3. Its origin is pagan and fabulous. Instead of pointing us to scripture for proof of the we are pointed to the trident of the Persians, with the assertion that "by this they designed to teach the idea of a trinity, and if they had the doctrine of the trinity, they must have r it by tradition from the people of God. But this is all assumed, for it is certain that th church held to no such doctrine. Says Mr. Summerbell, "A friend of mine who was present in a New York synagogue, asked the Rabbi for an explanation of the word 'elohim'. A Trinitarian clergyman who stood by, replied, 'Why, that has reference to the three persons in the Trin when a Jew stepped forward and said he must not mention that word again, or they would have to compel him to leave the house; for it was not permitted to mention the name of any strange god in the synagogue." 1 Milman says the idea of the Trident is fabulous. 2
  

This doctrine of the trinity was brought into the church about the same time with image worship, and keeping the day of the sun, and is but Persian doctrine remodeled. It occupie about three hundred years from its introduction to bring the doctrine to what it is now. I commenced about 325 A. D., and was not completed till 681. See Milman's Gibbon's Rome, vol. iv, p.422. It was adopted in Spain in 589, in England in 596, in Africa in 534. - Gib iv, pp.114,345; Milner, vol. i, p.519.

~ J.B. Frisbie
"We will make a few extracts, that the reader may see the broad contrast between the God o the Bible brought to light through Sabbath-keeping, and the god in the dark through Sunday keeping.
Catholic Catechism Abridged by the Rt. Rev. John Dubois, Bishop of New York. Page 5.

'Q. Where is God?
A. God is everywhere.

Q. Does God see and know all things?
A. Yes, he does know and see all things...

Q. Are there more Gods than one?
A. No; there is but one God.

Q. Are there more persons than one in God?
A Yes; in God there are three persons.

Q. Which are they?
A. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

Q. Are there not three Gods?
A. No; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are all but one and the same God'

...These ideas well accord with those heathen philosophers...We should rather mistrust that the Sunday God [the Trinity] came from the same source that Sunday-keeping did."
Review and Herald, Feb. 28, 1854, The Sunday God, p.50. [emphasis supplied].

~ A.T. Jones
"Another, and most notable opponent, was Servetus who had opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism."
Review and Herald, June 17, 1884.

Another, and the most notable of all the victims of Calvin's theocracy, was Servetus, who opposed the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and also infant baptism; and had published a book entitled "Christianity Restored," in which he declared his sentiments. He had been condemned to death by the Catholics for heresy, but he escaped from their prison in Dauphiné, in France, and in making his way to Italy, passed through Geneva, and there remained a few days. He was just about to start for Zurich, when at the instigation of Cal he was seized, and out of the book before mentioned, was accused of blasphemy. The result, as everybody knows, was the he was burned to death. Dr. Alexander says further, "The heres of Servetus was not extirpated by his death; but none of his followers were visited with severer penalties than banishment from Geneva. The trials of several of these, with the conferences and controversies connected with them, occupied much of Calvin's time for several years."
{June 17, 1884 ATJ, ARSH 387.2}

"An 'Ordinance for the Suppression of Blasphemies and Heresies,' which Vane and Cromwell had long held at bay, was passed by triumphant majorities. Any man—ran this terrible statu —denying the doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of Christ, or that the books of Scripture are the 'word of God,' or the resurrection of the body, or a future day of Judgm and refusing on trial to abjure his heresy, 'shall suffer the pain of death.' Any man decl (among a long list of other errors) 'that man by nature hath free will to turn to God,' th there is a purgatory, that images are lawful, that infant baptism is unlawful; any one den the obligation of observing the Lord's day, or asserting 'that the church government by presbytery is anti-Christian or unlawful,' shall, on refusal to renounce his errors, 'be commanded to prison.'"—Green's Larger History of England, book VII., chap. 10, par. 11.
{September 1886 ATJ, AMS 70.10}

Be it enacted by the right honorable the lord proprietor, by and with the advice and conse of his lordship's governor, and the upper and lower houses of assembly, and the authority the same, That if any persons shall hereafter, within this province, wittingly, maliciousl advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme or curse God, or deny our Saviour Jesus Chris to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or Godhead of any of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead, or shall utter any profa words concerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, and shall be thereof con by verdict, or confession, shall, for the first offence, be bored through the tongue and f twenty pounds sterling to the lord proprietor to be applied to the use of the county where offence shall be committed, to be levied on the offender's body, goods and chattels, lands tenements, and in case the said fine cannot be levied, the offender to suffer six months' imprisonment without bail or mainprise; and that for the second offence, the offender bein thereof convict as aforesaid, shall be stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the let and fined forty pounds sterling to the lord proprietor, to be applied and levied as afores and in case the same cannot be levied, the offender shall suffer twelve months' imprisonme without bail or mainprise; and that for the third offence, the offender being convict as aforesaid, shall suffer death without the benefit of the clergy.
{February 13, 1890 ATJ, A 49.6}

In A.D. 512 one of these Trisagion riots broke out in Constantinople, because the emperor proposed to use the added clause. "Many palaces of the nobles were set on fire, the office the crown insulted, pillage, conflagration, violence, raged through the city." In the hous the favorite minister of the emperor there was found a monk from the country. He was accused of having suggested the use of the addition. His head was cut off and raised high pole, and the whole orthodox populace marched through the streets singing the orthodox Trisagion, and shouting, "Behold the enemy of the Trinity!" 10
{February 22, 1894 ATJ, AMS 60.1}

They are explained by an editorial answer in the same issue, to a question regarding the burning of Servetus by John Calvin. The editor defends that fiendish transaction by saying that the book regarding the Trinity written by Servetus, was "an injury to the State as we the Church," and that "the sentence was pronounced and executed upon Servetus as an enemy to the stability, peace and welfare of the country."
Let all seventh-day observers understand that their faithfulness in observing the "Sabbath day according to the commandment," and their refusal to observe Sunday according to the commandment of the "man of sin," the "mystery of iniquity," the papacy, places them, in th minds of the Sunday-law crusaders of Pennsylvania, along with Michael Servetus, who was, in the minds of the priests of the established church of Pennsylvania, very properly burne over a slow fire, because he was "hostile to the government of the State."
{March 21, 1895 ATJ, AMS 96.11-12}

~ D.W. Hull
"The inconsistent positions held by many in regard to the Trinity, as it is termed, has, doubt, been the prime cause of many other errors. Erroneous views of the divinity of Chris are apt to lead us into error in regard to the nature of the atonement... "The doctrine wh we propose to examine, was established by the council of Nice, A.D., 325, and ever since t period, persons not believing this peculiar tenet, have been denounced by popes and priest as dangerous heretics. It was for a disbelief in this doctrine. that the Arians were anathematized in A.D., 513... "As we can trace this doctrine no further back than the orig the 'Man of Sin,' and as we find this dogma at that time established rather by force than otherwise, we claim the right to investigate the matter, and ascertain the bearing of Scri on this subject."
Review and Herald, Nov.10, 1859.

~ J.N. Andrews
“The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Review & Herald, March 6, 1855

~ D.M. Canright
There is, then, only one wise God. 1 Tim. 2:5; Dt. 6:4. Those who are familiar with the B will see that I have selected only a few of the plainest texts upon this doctrine. How the doctrine of the Trinity, of three Gods, can be reconciled with these positive statements I not know. It seems to me that nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the Trinity, than do the Scriptures above quoted.

"Turning to the New Testament, we find the same doctrine taught just as plainly as in the Old. Neither Moses nor the prophets ever set forth the unity of God more strongly than Jes himself. He taught it and reiterated it many times. Thus he says: 'The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lor thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul...And the scribe said unto him, Well, Ma thou hast said the truth; for there is one God; and there is none other but he.' Mark 12:2 "The scribe said, 'There is one God, and there is none other but he.' To this declaration assented. 'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesu Christ, whom thou has sent.' John 17:3 Jesus says his Father is the only true God. But Trinitarians contradict this by saying that the Son and Holy Ghost are just as much the tr God as the Father is... [1 Cor. 8:4-6 quoted] "Says the great apostle, 'There is none othe but one,' and 'there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' He tells us who one God is. It is not the Holy Ghost; it is not Jesus Christ, but it is the Father. Gal. 3 Tim. 1:17.

"And then the Bible never uses the phrases, 'Trinity,' 'triune God,' 'three in one,' 'the three," 'God the Holy Ghost,' etc. but it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, a all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bib "God is self-existent, and the source and author of all things,-of angels, of men, of all worlds,-of everything. Thus Paul says, 'For of him and through him and to him, are all thi to whom be glory forever. Amen.' Rom. 11:36. "He is the source of all life and immortality Thus, speaking of the Father, Paul says, 'Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.' 1 Tim. 6:16. Notice that this glorious God is the only on who, in himself, possesses immortality. That is, he is the fountain-head, the source of al and immortality... "'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son t life in himself.' John 5:26. This statement is unequivocal. The Father has life in himself in his great love for his Son he bestows the same gift upon him; but it will be noticed th Father is the one from whom the gift came... "How carefully Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son. He says, 'The Father, of whom are all things,' and 'Jesus Christ, by w are all things.' The Father is the source of everything. Jesus is the one through whom all things are done. All the authority, the glory, and the power of Christ he received from his Father...

"Text: 'But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' 1 Cor.8:6...

time when the Bible was written, nearly the whole world had adopted either Polytheism or Pantheism. Polytheism taught that there were many gods...In opposition to that, Moses and the prophets set forth the grand fact that this doctrine of many gods was a lie, and that was but one God, Jehovah the living God... "'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. Dt. 6:4. Here we strike the key-note of the doctrine of the Deity. 'The Lord our God is ON Lord.' Not many, not a thousand, not a hundred, not ten, not three, but only ONE-one God..
[Ex. 20:3; Dt. 4:35; 2Sam. 7:22; 2Kings 19:15; Neh. 9:6; Psa. 86:10; Isa. 43:10; Isa 44:6, Isa. 45:5,22; quoted] No comments of ours can make these declarations plainer. There is just one eternal God and no more,-one who is the Author and Father of all things.

~ J. S. Washburn
“The doctrine of the Trinity is a cruel heathen monstrosity, removing Jesus from his true position of Divine Savior and Mediator. It is true we can not measure or define divinity. beyond our finite understanding, yet on this subject of the personality of God the Bible i simple and plain. The Father, the Ancient of Days, is from eternity… Satan has taken some heathen conception of a three-headed monstrosity, and with deliberate intention to cast contempt upon divinity, has woven it into Romanism as our glorious God, an impossible, absurd invention. This monstrous doctrine transplanted from heathenism into the Roman Papal Church is seeking to intrude its evil presence into the teachings of the Third Angel Message.… ” [Portions of a letter written by J. S. Washburn in 1939. This letter was liked conference president so much that he distributed it to 32 of his ministers.]

~ J.M. Stephenson
This term expresses his highest, and most exalted nature... "The idea of Father and Son supposes priority of the existence of the one, and the subsequent existence of the other. say that the Son is as old as his Father, is a palpable contradiction of terms. It is a na impossibility for the Father to be as young as the Son, or the Son to be as old as the Fat it be said that this term is only used in an accommodated sense, it still remains to be accounted for, why the Father should use as the uniform title of the highest, and most endearing relation between himself and our Lord, a term which, in its uniform significatio would contradict the very idea he wished to convey. If the inspired writers had wished to convey the idea of the co-etaneous existence, and eternity of the Father and Son, they cou not possibly have used more incompatible terms. And of this, Trinitarians, had the honesty acknowledge, in the conclusion of his work on the Son-ship of Christ, that, 'in the order nature, the Father must have existed Before the Son.'"
Review and Herald, Nov. 14, 1854.

~ Joseph Bates
"My parents were members of long standing in the Congregational church, with all of their converted children thus far, and anxiously hoped that we would also unite with them. But they embraced some points of faith which I could not understand. I will name two only: the mode of baptism, and doctrine of the Trinity.

My father, who had been a deacon of long standing with them, labored to convince me that they were right in points of doctrine...I said to my father, 'If you can convince me that one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, you my son, then I can believe in the Trinity.'...In a few days I was immersed and joined Christian church."
The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, 1868, pp. 204, 205.

~ Uriah Smith
"J.W.W. asks: 'Are we to understand that the Holy Ghost is a person, the same as the Fathe and the Son? Some claim that it is, others that it is not.' "
Answer - The terms 'Holy Ghost,' are a harsh and repulsive translation. It should be 'Holy Spirit' (hagion pneuma) in every instance. This Spirit is the Spirit of God, and the Spiri Christ; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the ide that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influen them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present.

~ Merritt E. Cornell
Protestants and Catholics are so nearly united in sentiment, that it is not difficult to c how Protestants may make an image to the Beast. The mass of Protestants believe with Catholics in the Trinity, immortality of the soul, consciousness of the dead, rewards and punishments at death, the endless torture of the wicked, inheritance of the saints beyond skies, sprinkling for baptism, and the PAGAN SUNDAY for the Sabbath; all of which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the new testament. Surely there is between the mother daughters, a striking family resemblance.
{1858 MEC, FT 76.1}

~ Wm. C. Gage
Popular Errors and Their Fruits. No. 3

Having noticed some of the evil effects of the doctrine of immortal soulism, and the error growing out of it, we propose to refer briefly to another erroneous belief, equally popula quite as unscriptural, if not fully as mischievous in its tendency, namely Trinitarianism. this expression we mean the doctrine that the Father, Son and Spirit are untied in one and the same person, making Christ the very and eternal God. We call it belief, although we question very much whether any one ever did really believe anything which the human mind cannot comprehend.

The principal evil caused by this belief, is the popular form of infidelity known as Unitarianism. Perhaps some may object to this, that the two doctrines are completely antagonistic, and therefore in no way related to each other. This is all true, but it shou borne in mind that the proneness of our race is to run to extremes. When the evils of a fa position are apparent to the mind, there is a dangerous tendency to rush as far from it as possible into the other extreme, instead of taking position on safe medium ground. Thus it in the present case. Some who cannot endorse the doctrine of the trinity, go to the other extreme, and utterly deny the divinity of Christ. Having gone so far, they are ready to do his miracles, and the inspiration of his utterances, and finally to look upon the Bible as or no better than any other book. That trinitarianism is thus responsible for much of this unbelief must be apparent to those who are not themselves unwilling to reason from cause t effect.

Another result of this doctrine is a serious difficulty in the question of the atonement. Christ and the Father constitute only one person, and Christ died for our race, the death God is thereby involved, and consequently a denial of his immortality; and, worse than all this, the unavoidable conclusion, that for the period of time in which Christ lay in the t the universe had no God to uphold and govern it.

To be sure, this is evaded, as a noted American D. D. confesses, "by a dodge," in which it asserted that only the human part of Christ died. But this does not help the matter in the least, for if that were true, then we have only a human offering or sacrifice, and we migh well take sides with the Unitarian at once, in denying the divine atonement.

With such confusion as this to represent Christianity, it is no wonder that the heathen ge degraded idea of God, as evinced in the reply of the Chinaman to the Jew, who was reviling his nationality. Thinking to retort upon him as severely is possible he replied: "Ah! me k you; you kill the Melican man's God." How much better it would be to accept the doctrine o the distinct individuality and personality of the Father and the Son, confessing them "one heart, mind and purpose, and thus avoid the jargon of confusion always attendant upon erroneous doctrine.

Another error, even more generally endorsed than any or the foregoing, is the doctrine of atonement on the cross. This also furnishes another support for Unitarianism. The Scriptur plainly teach that Christ died for all men. Now if his death on the cross was the atonemen then the sins of all men are atoned for, and all will be saved. The conclusion is unavoida and we deny the doctrine of the atonement on the cross, not because it leads to this belie but because it is scripturally untrue, and then as an incentive for proclaiming its falsit have the fact that it is a strong pillar for a destructive error. Wm. C. Gage.
{August 2 UrSe, ARSH 101.3-8}

~ Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald
Bro. Cottrell is nearly eighty years of age, remembers the dark day of 1780, and has been Sabbath-keeper more than thirty years. He was formerly united with the Seventh-Day Baptists, but on some points of doctrine has differed from that body. He rejected the doct of the trinity, also the doctrine of man's consciousness between death and the resurrection and the punishment of the wicked in eternal consciousness. He believed that the wicked would be destroyed. Bro. Cottrell buried his wife not long since, who, it is said, was one excellent of the earth. Not long since, this aged pilgrim received a letter from friends i Wisconsin, purporting to be from M. Cottrell, his wife, who sleeps in Jesus. But he, belief that the dead know not anything, was prepared to reject at once the heresy that the spirit the dead, knowing everything, come back and converse with the living. Thus truth is a staf his old age. He has three sons in Mill Grove, who, with their families are Sabbath-keepers
{June 9, 1853 JWe, ARSH 12.13}

NOT long since, during an interview with a Papist, he made a statement of what he regarded as being the true definition of the word, soul, and of what he believed would be its condition after death, and after the judgment. These views did not differ materially from the popular theology of the day. In vindication of which, he added, "And if you have read Butler's Catechism, you have found it there." I remarked that the Bible did not endorse such sentiments. "I know that" said he, "neither can you prove the Trinity from the Bible."
Here then, thus far, we have an acknowledgement or confession of the faith of the Romish Church, for which its advocate laid no claim to any scriptural proof. Neither do Romanists regard the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith. But contrariwise: "The Bible does not count things necessary to salvation, and, consequently, can not be a sufficient rule of faith." Way.
{August 15, 1854 JWe, ARSH 4.25-26}

"Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of SUNDAY the first day of the week, for the observance of SATURDAY the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
{August 22, 1854 JWe, ARSH 13.24-25}

"Q. Do you observe other necessary truths as taught by the Church, NOT CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN SCRIPTURE?

A. The doctrine of the TRINITY, a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense private interpretation.
{August 22, 1854 JWe, ARSH 13.26-27}

As fundamental errors, we might class with this counterfeit sabbath other errors which Protestants have brought away from the Catholic church, such as sprinkling for baptism, th trinity, the consciousness of the dead and eternal life in misery. The mass who have held these fundamental errors, have doubtless done it ignorantly; but can it be supposed that t church of Christ will carry along with her these errors till the judgment scenes burst upo world? We think not. "Here are they [in the period of a message given just before the Son man takes his place upon the white cloud, Rev.xiv,14] that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." This class, who live just prior to the second advent, will not be keeping the traditions of men, neither will they be holding fundamental errors relative to plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. And as the true light shines out upon these subjec and is rejected by the mass, then condemnation will come upon them. When the true Sabbath is set before men, and the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon them, and they reject this holy institution of the God of heaven, and choose in its place an institution beast, it can then be said, in the fullest sense, that such worship the beast. The warning message of the third angel is given in reference to that period, when the mark of the beas be received, instead of the seal of the living God. Solemn dreadful, swiftly-approaching h
{September 12, 1854 JWe, ARSH 36.7}

The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush.
{March 6 JWe, ARSH 185.34}

Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of sprinkling or pouring instead of being "buried with Christ in baptism "planted in the likeness of his death:" but we pass from these fables to notice one that i sacred by nearly all professed Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. It is,
{Decembe 1855 JWe, ARSH 85.15}

~ Sarah Haselton
In 1Cor.xv, I find that it is not the natural man that hath immortality; yet Paul assures Romans that by patient continuance in well doing all could obtain immortality and eternal life. The doctrine called the trinity, claiming that God is without form or parts; that th Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the three are one person, is another. Could God be without for or parts when he "spoke unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto a friend?"

[Ex.xxxiii,11.] or when the Lord said unto him, Thou canst not see my face; for there shal man see me and live? And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take my hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen. Ex.xxxiii,20,22,2 Christ is the express image of his Father's person. Heb.i,3.
{July 10, 1856 UrSe, ARSH 87.

In John xvii,21,23, is shown how the Father and Son are one. In Jesus' prayer to his Fathe (not to himself) he prayed for them that should believe: that they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; and the glory which tho gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou me, that they may be made perfect in one, etc. {July 10, 1856 UrSe, ARSH 87.28}
The errors mentioned above are not only the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, but th Protestant churches are poisoned with the bane of the mother church. I know it is hard for people to get rid of opinions formed from traditions of men, handed down through many generations; but we must get rid of them if we would be prepared to meet the Lord.
{July 1 1856 UrSe, ARSH 87.29}

The following articles are taken from the Discipline of the M. E. Church:
{March 12, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 146.11-23}

"Art. 1. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infi power, wisdom, and goodness: the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three persons of one substance, power, and eternit the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Query. How many personal Gods of one substance does it take, including the person of Christ, to make one God without body or parts?
Ans. Three.

"Art. 2. The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substanc with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin; so that two whole an perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

Query. As the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person before Christ was born, never to be divided, were they divided in the death of Christ on the cross?

"Art. 4. The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God."

Query. How can the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son, if it is both the Father and the Son of itself?

If it be said that the Spirit of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one Spirit this we all agree. But if it be said that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are persons in one person, making in all one God without body or parts, with an idea so inconsistent we cannot agree.

The oneness of Christ with the Father may be plainly seen by any one who will refer to Joh xvii,22. "That they (that believe) may be one, even as we are one." Who could believe that Christ prayed that his disciples should be one disciple? Yet this would be no more inconsistent than the idea of some that Christ and his Father are one person.

In accordance with the doctrine that three very and eternal Gods are but one God, how may we reconcile Matt.iii,16,17. Jesus was baptized, Spirit of God descended like a dove, and Father's voice heard from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, etc. The Father in heave the Son on earth, the Spirit of God descending from one to the other. Who could ever suppose for a moment that these three were one person without body or parts, unless it was by early training. See other texts which appear equally absurd, if such doctrine be true. Matt.xxviii,18; Acts x,38. "How God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost," etc. First person takes the third person and anoints the second person with a person being at the same time one with himself.

That three are one, and one are three,
Is an idea that puzzles me;
By many a learned sage 'tis said
That three are one in the Godhead.

The Father then may be the Son,
For both together make but one;
The Son may likewise be the Father,
Without the smallest change of either.

Yea, and the blessed Spirit be
The Father, Son and trinity;
This is the creed of Christian folks,
Who style themselves true orthodox,
All which against plain common sense,
We must believe or give offense."

He proceeded to affirm that "man is a triune being," consisting of body, soul and spirit. never heard a Disciple confess faith in the doctrine of the trinity; but why not, if man c of three persons in one person? especially, since man was made in the image of God? But th image he said, was a moral likeness. So man may be a triune being without proving that God is. But does he mean that one man is three men? I might say that a tree consists of body, and leaves, and no one perhaps would dispute it. But if I should affirm that each tree con of three trees, the assertion would possibly be doubted by some. But if all admitted that tree is three trees, I might then affirm that there were ninety trees in my orchard, when one could count but thirty. I might then proceed and say, I have ninety trees in my orchar and as each tree consists of three trees, I have two hundred and seventy. So if one man is three men, you may multiply him by three as often as you please. But if it takes body, sou and spirit to make one perfect, living man; then separate these, and the man is unmade.
{November 19, 1857 UrSe, ARSH 13.13}

Theodosius' edict which was made in the year A. D. 380. This may be found in Gibbon's Rome, chap. xxvii. After having given an account of Theodosius' baptism he says: "And, as the emperor ascended from the holy fount, still glowing with the warm feelings of regeneration, he dictated a solemn edict, which proclaimed his own faith, and prescribed t religion of his subjects. It is our pleasure (such is the imperial style) that all the nat are governed by our clemency and moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful tradition has preserved, and which is now professed by the pontiff Damasus, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man o apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the g let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; under an equal majesty, and a pious trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the ti catholic Christians; and as we judge that all others are extravagant mad-men, we brand the with the infamous name of heretics and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usu espectable appellation of churches. Besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shal think proper to inflict upon them."
{January 15, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 69.17}

Return to top

<º///><